1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive personal automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant B and C (hereinafter “insured”) on February 11, 2014 through May 11, 2014, with respect to the term of validity, from February 11, 2014 to May 11, 2014, and the couple’s limited driving special agreement was stipulated as special terms and conditions.

B. Defendant A, at around 07:10 on March 26, 2014, was driving an insured vehicle on the backboard rock of the 07:10 square meters, in violation of the signal while driving the insured vehicle.

D. The accident caused the shock of the D Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "victim") (hereinafter referred to as the "accident").

C. After the instant accident, Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to compensate for a traffic accident by notifying the Plaintiff of the occurrence of the traffic accident, with the knowledge that Defendant A was the legal spouse of Defendant B, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 59,293,720,00 in total, including KRW 2,964,69,200, KRW 4,880,00 in insured vehicle damages, KRW 30,139,830 in insured vehicle damages, and KRW 30,00 in Defendant A’s medical expenses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap 1, 2, 5 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract and the instant accident, Defendant B had a legal relationship with F, and thus, the Defendants were in a de facto marital relationship. Defendant A did not include the “spouse having a de facto marital relationship” as stipulated in the marital limited driving agreement of the instant insurance contract, and the Plaintiff did not have a duty to pay the insurance proceeds due to the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to return the remainder of the insurance proceeds excluding KRW 800,000 from the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Accordingly, Defendant B had already been divorced from Defendant B’s spouse F under the law, and the de facto marital relationship between the Defendants is equivalent to legal divorce.